Alden Press, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 26, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 580 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alden Press, Inc.' and Local #8 Graphic Arts Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 13-
RC-13026
July 26, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Harvey A. Roth of
the National Labor Relations Board. Following the
close of hearing, the Regional Director for Region 13
transferred this case to the Board for decision. There-
after, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs.2
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board
finds:
1. The parties stipulated and we find that the Em-
ployer, who provides printing and related services, is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer. While the
Employer questioned the Petitioner's status as a labor
organization and its ability to adequately represent
the employees in the unit sought, the record discloses
that the Petitioner admits employees to membership
and represents employees concerning wages, hours,
and working conditions. Accordingly, it is clear that
the Petitioner is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
The Employer contends that the Petitioner is dis-
qualified from seeking an election under Section 9(c)
of the Act on the grounds that it engaged in discrimi-
natory practices on the basis of sex.3 The Employer
placed such disqualification in issue when, on May 16
and 17, 1973, subpoenas duces tecum were served by
the Employer on William T. Edwards, representative
of the Petitioner, and Patricia Jenkins, secretary-trea-
surer of Graphics Arts International Union, Local
No. 30-B, the sister local of Petitioner. Attached to
each subpena was a schedule setting forth the items
whose production was requested, including (a) mem-
bership lists indicating the sex of all members, (b)
present and preceding constitution and bylaws, (c)
pension plan agreements, (d) health and welfare
1 As amended during the hearing
2 The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied since the
record and beefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties
3 N.L R B v. Mansion House Center Management Corp, 473 F 2d 471 (C A
8, 1973)
agreements, (e) lists of individuals who had applied
for membership, (f) certain collective-bargaining
agreements and certain other documents containing
evidence bearing on the issue of Petitioner's disquali-
fication to obtain or retain certification.
On May 21, Petitioner filed with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 13 petitions to revoke the subpenas.
The sole ground upon which revocation of the subpe-
nas was sought was that:
The materials set forth in Schedule "A" of the
aforesaid Subpoena Duces Tecum are irrelevant
and immaterial to any germane issues in connec-
tion with the subject representation petition and
hearing.
On May 23, the Regional Director issued an "Order
Referring Petitions To Revoke Subpoenas," by which
he referred to the Board the petitions to revoke be-
cause, in his view, the petitions "raised certain policy
considerations."
On June 1, a telegraphic order was issued by the
Board's Executive Secretary, informing the parties
that the Board had granted Petitioner's petitions to
revoke the subpenas because:
The Board is of the opinion that it would not
effectuate the policies of the Act to litigate the
disqualification issue at the pre-election hearing.
The order also noted that the issue of Petitioner's
disqualification based on discriminatory practices
could, however, be raised as a postelection objection
under the provisions of Section 102.69 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations.
Thereafter, the hearing in this case was held on
June 15, during which the Employer moved that the
proceedings be postponed to permit the Employer
sufficient time to request reconsideration of the
Board's order revoking the subpenas as an alternative
to the institution of injunction proceedings in the Fed-
eral district court. That motion was denied by the
Hearing Officer, whereupon the Employer requested,
and was granted, leave to file with the Regional Direc-
tor a special appeal from the Hearing Officer's ruling.
The Acting Regional Director suggested that the par-
ties proceed with the hearing, but that following the
hearing the Employer's motions would be given due
consideration. The Employer has filed with the Board
a motion for reconsideration of the Board's order.
The Employer has in no way waived its contention
that the Board lacks jurisdiction to proceed without
first hearing evidence on the issue of Petitioner's dis-
qualification.
212 NLRB No. 91
ALDEN PRESS, INC. 581
Following the hearing, this case was transferred to
the Board by'order of the Regional Director because
it involves Mansion House issues as well as subpena
problems arising therefrom in which a prehearing mo-
tion to quash subpenas has been ruled upon by the
Board.
The issue of disqualification of Petitioner on
grounds of discrimination based on sex is substantial-
ly the same as that in Bekins Moving & Storage Co. of
Florida, Inc.,4 and we are of the opinion that it would
not effectuate the policies of the Act to permit litiga-
tion of such issues at the preelection stage of the pro-
ceedings.' Therefore, we deny the Employer's motion
for the Board to reconsider its order revoking the
Employer's subpenas.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the fol-
lowing employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time production
employees and other employees not currently
represented by another labor organization who
are employed at the employer's locations at 5060
North Kimberly Avenue, Chicago, Illinois,
and/or 2000 Arthur Avenue, Elk Grove Village,
Illinois, but excluding all office clerical employ-
ees professional employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.6
4 211 NLRB No 7
5 The Board has held that such inquiries are outside the scope of a preelec-
tion hearing. As noted in Bekins Moving & Storage Co of Florida, Inc, supra,
Chairman Miller and Member Jenkins would consider objections to a labor
organization 's capacity to fairly represent employees only upon the postelec-
tion filing of properly substantiated objections to the issuance of a certifica-
tion. Member Kennedy concurs substantially with that postelection
procedure but would limit consideration to the issue of alleged discrimination
on the basis of "race, alienage, or national origin ." Members Fanning and
Penello reject the contentions of the Employer herein for the reasons stated
in their dissenting opinions in Bekins They would not consider allegations
of discriminatory practices by labor organizations in a precertification pro-
ceeding but would "leave such questions as they may raise, with respect to
the Petitioner's willingness or capacity to represent fairly all employees in the
bargaining unit, to be resolved in other proceedings under the Act "
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
6 In addition , the parties entered into the following stipulations with re-
spect to unit composition:
The term "supervisors" includes (a) Ray Lank, (b) Ed Coates, ( c) Sam
Sorrentino ; (d) Joe Sadora ; (e) Joseph Sorrentino ; (f) Nate Price ; (g),Irv
Adleman; (h) Keith Peters; (i) Harold Schuett; 0) Howard LaFleur; (k)
Frank Gracia Krunsinski , and (1) Paul Frontezak- It was also agreed that
while there may be individuals occupying supervisory positions above those
indicated , there were no individuals in positions below those indicated who
would be excluded as supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 ( 11) of the
Act.
The term "production employees" includes all quality control employees.
The term "office clerical employees" includes (a) Susan Teguire ; (b) Lu-
cille Benke , and (c) Mary Zucker.